This was the very first thought that came into my head. The reason for gun control in the United States is because of people like him. If you really want to keep your guns, don't listen to him.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scarf

I would laugh at how unaware this fool is of what he's just done to hurt his own position, but I know there are hundreds, thousands, and probably millions of similar fools in America who wouldn't get the irony and who also probably have guns themselves so I'm really worried more than anything that we have such a gun problem something like this can be said in the first place.

Pretty much this. The irony is almost killing me. Haha, get it?

Quote:

Originally Posted by CarcharOdin

LilJz1234 hate to break this to you, but...

The United States murder rate has dropped more than 50% since 1992. It seems to be getting there, with or without increased gun control.

I've yet to determine the cause, however, so make of it what you will.

@kelario: At first I thought you were being sarcastic, but you seem to be serious. Hm.
First off, you can't compare the USA and Canada by weapon laws alone. It's also a fact that Canadians are much more nicer than the usual American, since in America you have a elbow society. I would prefer to use a much more insulting term, but hey, rules and stuff.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kelario27

Get off the internet, all of you.

I politely return the request.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kelario27

Even if guns were banned in America, they can still get them elsewhere; if guns are banned in every country on the planet, they make their own. There's no stopping criminals unless you fight back yourself; these guys get clever and if you can't defend yourself, you're dead.

Oh yeah, it's difficult to get guns in Germany and I'm getting murdered practically everyday. Not. I wonder why is it difficult to get guns in Germany after all? I wonder if it has to do something with this war-thingy you spoke about.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kelario27

Listen people. Criminals will go to great lengths to commit crimes.

Because they are criminal because... uhh... they want to! It has probably nothing to do that they are despaired of their situation. Or simply crazy, but this amount is always very small. Take the (German) example of Winnenden, for example.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kelario27

He would become a criminal if he just decided to shoot somebody for no reason.

Sick heads, as I said. If I were you, I would wonder more why there are so many sickheads in America. Fox News, maybe? Guys like the Manson family murder for no reason. Else there is a reason (through they don't justify killing).

Quote:

If he shoots somebody who's invading his home to try and take away his guns, he's defending his property and therefore isn't a criminal.

In my eyes, if you hurt anybody life threatening just because he is robbing you (for some reasons) you are the criminal. You can rebuy stuff, but not return people from the dead. Oh wait, next argument is "He should have thought about that before!", right? Well, that's what prison should teach him.

Quote:

By "killing people," he means the latter.

You would know, right?

Fun question: Who is the bigger criminal? The guy who shoots you or the society that drove him to that point?

I hope that wasn't too much sarcasm to understand. I would like to conclude my post with the following thesis:
Guns are made to kill (not to "defend", you got tasers and stuff for that), so there would be less gun murders in America if there would be less people ready to kill for little reasons. So the problem isn't the gun law but the people. In America.

But as always, making it more difficult to get guns, would prevent many kills in affect I bet.

I also wanted to make a mockery of how tools of death and "Love and Tolerance" fit together, but I have a meeting now, see you later!

The United States murder rate has dropped more than 50% since 1992. It seems to be getting there, with or without increased gun control.

I've yet to determine the cause, however, so make of it what you will.

Okay, let's say guns were COMPLETELY banned from USA. Murder rates will still be the same? I don't think so, Even if people starts killing with knives, you got a way higher chance to defend yourself than against someone with a gun. So gun control will surely not stop crime, but greatly reduce the number of civilians killed by guns.

And the cops aren't doing anything about this psycho? I say, in all honesty, throw him in a mental asylum, as he is obviously not well in the head. And if gun activists are this insane, then there should most definitely be higher limitations on firearms. If they actually think that killing people will convince the government to support guns, then they are genuinely crazy and need to be locked up in solitary confinement.

You see, giving a gun to someone who already has violent tendencies, like these wackos, is a bad idea no matter how you spin it. I'm fine with allowing things like hunting rifles to be sold to people, but there needs to be a solid and strict background check in place to prevent weapons from falling into the wrong hands.

__________________

FC: 2148-8142-2372

PM me if you add me.

My Friend Safari is Water-type, with Gyarados, Azumarill, and Octillery.

James Yeager, the CEO who recently threatened to "start killing people" if President Barack Obama pursued an expansion on gun control, has had his gun permit suspended.

Authorities with the Tennessee Department of Safety and Homeland Security told Newschannel 5 the suspension was based on "material likelihood of risk of harm to the public."

In a statement to the station, Commissioner Bill Gibbons said:

Quote:

The number one priority for our department is to ensure the public's safety. Mr. Yeager's comments were irresponsible, dangerous, and deserved our immediate attention. Due to our concern, as well as that of law enforcement, his handgun permit was suspended immediately. We have notified Mr. Yeager about the suspension today via e-mail. He will receive an official notification of his suspension through the mail.

Yeager raised some eyebrows after posting a video to YouTube Wednesday. In the clip he said increased gun control measures would "spark a civil war" and he would "be glad to fire the first shot."

The video originally ended with Yeager stating, "If it goes one inch further, I'm going to start killing people." He has since deleted that portion of the video, but an original version, captured by Raw Story, is still viewable below.

Yeager is the CEO of Tactical Response, a Tennessee company that teaches people weapons handling and other tactical skills.

In a video statement released on YouTube Thursday, Yeager acknowledges, "I was mad when I said it and probably allowed my mouth to overrun my logic, but I don't retract any of my statements."

Well... at least he has balls enough to stand by on his claim that he will start murdering people.

Honestly, I almost exspected the police to do nothing (since he has money and lives in America), but I'm really REALLY glad my prejudice didn't come true this time.

This civil war raging reminds me after the civil war raging after Obama's reelection. If it wouldn't involve killing people I would like to see these guys struggling against the army as the guns are taken away (of course after they shot various police officers who where just doing their job).

Well, but we are far off this scenario.

As for Yeager, good for him to acknowledge being a revolutionist in the name of own safety by killing others. See, these guys are the reasons I would just feel unsafe in America and thus never ever visit it.

What a jerk. He makes the rest of us look bad. That said, threatening to use executive order to circumvent congress is authoritarian and dictatorial. But nobody's threatening to take away guns from current gun owners, as far as I know.

I think it's brought up in another gun related thread, but didn't someone post in PC about "if guns shouldn't be banned cause civilians need it for self-defense, why are there so little crimes stopped by civilian using guns?" The reverse seems to happen relatively frequent though.

Interesting thought, but could the lack or removal of gun control be unconstitutional? After all, the amendment says "Well Regulated". And what is gun control? Regulation.

However, shall not be infringed. Regulations pertaining to who can and can not own weapons, primarily the federal laws that prohibit convicted felons such as murders and rapists, is against this.

The amendment requires us to have gun control, a form of regulation. But it also says that the rights shall not be infringed. Any form of regulation is, basically, the limitation of something because of, or due to, certian circumstances. In this case, regulation is limitation of the 2nd amendment. Which is, by the amendment, not allowed.

Interesting thought, but could the lack or removal of gun control be unconstitutional? After all, the amendment says "Well Regulated". And what is gun control? Regulation.

However, shall not be infringed. Regulations pertaining to who can and can not own weapons, primarily the federal laws that prohibit convicted felons such as murders and rapists, is against this.

The amendment requires us to have gun control, a form of regulation. But it also says that the rights shall not be infringed. Any form of regulation is, basically, the limitation of something because of, or due to, certian circumstances. In this case, regulation is limitation of the 2nd amendment. Which is, by the amendment, not allowed.

Interesting thought, but could the lack or removal of gun control be unconstitutional? After all, the amendment says "Well Regulated". And what is gun control? Regulation.

However, shall not be infringed. Regulations pertaining to who can and can not own weapons, primarily the federal laws that prohibit convicted felons such as murders and rapists, is against this.

The amendment requires us to have gun control, a form of regulation. But it also says that the rights shall not be infringed. Any form of regulation is, basically, the limitation of something because of, or due to, certian circumstances. In this case, regulation is limitation of the 2nd amendment. Which is, by the amendment, not allowed.

From my history lessons I know the American Constitution has the flaw that it can't be changed, only amendments can be made. I wonder if this ever leads to a "revolution", as any change of this fact would be against the law.

Comparing with the Germans, we can change our constitution, but not the first paragraphs about human rights. Sounds pretty clever this way :P But well, ours came much later than the American's (and they looked over ours, too), so I can't blame you.

Listen people. Criminals will go to great lengths to commit crimes. By "people," what the guy means is people who come and try to disarm him. He's not crazy; he really is defending our rights. I agree with him, though I won't necessarily take part: there will be war. And it's not even really defending our rights, per se, it's defending our right to defend ourselves. Take a look at places like Britain and Sweden. In those places, you can't have guns and you can have guns under license, respectively, but you are expressly banned from defending yourself. If a robber or murderer comes into your house to rob or murder you, you have to let them do it. Even if the cops hear about it, they don't do anything about it. That happened there because of people like you, and that is what America will with little doubt come to if gun control laws are passed.

Kelario, I don't think many people are arguing to get rid of all guns ever (even with all of their problems. I probably will never own one, if only for the safety of my future children as many gun-related deaths of children are from accidents involving guns). Everyone agrees on using gun/weapon control, that's why you can't keep a grenade launcher of a barrel of agent orange in your garage. We're just arguing on the severity of gun control.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kelario27

States with lax gun laws, such as Kansas and Alaska, for example, have quite low murder rates, and at least in Alaska it's big news to hear about a homicide. Then you take places like NYC and DC, where guns are banned and extremely hard to get, respectively. Just LOOK at their murder rates! It's ridiculous!

You also have to take into account the places themselves though. Alaska is much more rural than NYC. More people know each other and the overall population is lower. NYC is a huge city with tons of people, all moving in and out. Fewer people know each other and some don't even speak English. According to social disorder theory, this is where more crimes will take place anyway. Your evidence is likely a spurious relationship.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kelario27

Take a look at Britain and Sweden, for example. A buttload of types of guns are illegal there, and it's illegal to defend yourself. As I've said before, if a murderer or robber decides he wants to murder or rob you, you have to let him do it or you can face years in prison. The state of New York is actually considering this. Imagine being in the position of the guy being murdered or robbed, and being unable to defend yourself.

I would like to see evidence of this, preferably not from sites like The Blaze or Infowars.

As for assault rifles, of course they're useful in war, that's what they were made for, but no ordinary citizen needs one.

I always like to point out that the second amendment was written at a time when everyone had to use muskets, which were very inaccurate and took a long time to load. If the founding fathers were round today they would probably look at our modern guns and say "yeah, we should probably do something about this."

You know, I'm just going to throw this out there, but it pisses me off when both sides (especially the anti-gun side) uses the whole "the founding fathers were/weren't envisioning [insert modern weapon] here."

Who the bloody hell knows what the founded fathers were envisioning or intending?

Fun fact: You weren't alive in the 1700's. None of us here were. What the heck do you know about what they were thinking or what they would be thinking?

You know, I'm just going to throw this out there, but it pisses me off when both sides (especially the anti-gun side) uses the whole "the founding fathers were/weren't envisioning [insert modern weapon] here."

Who the bloody hell knows what the founded fathers were envisioning or intending?

Fun fact: You weren't alive in the 1700's. None of us here were. What the heck do you know about what they were thinking or what they would be thinking?

The whole reason for the second amendment was to make it a failsafe against government. So the people could fight back against tyranny. That whole concept has been made useless by modern technology. The government has an army of flying killer robots that they could use on anyone at any time.

I don't claim to know exactly what they were thinking, but I do know that their original reasons for the amendment are outdated. It was tailored for their own time, and we have the third amendment for this same reason. Being forced to house soldiers against their will was a real concern back then, but you never hear about it now.

Keep in mind that I'm not arguing for the removal of the amendment, but the idea that it should be our right to own any kind of weapon we want is ridiculous. That's why I brought it up. I don't even know if anyone is arguing for that.

You know, I'm just going to throw this out there, but it pisses me off when both sides (especially the anti-gun side) uses the whole "the founding fathers were/weren't envisioning [insert modern weapon] here."

Who the bloody hell knows what the founded fathers were envisioning or intending?

Fun fact: You weren't alive in the 1700's. None of us here were. What the heck do you know about what they were thinking or what they would be thinking?

It matters because the Amendment was written during a time when the current technology is lightyears beyond anything in their wildest dreams. So a document for 1789 could not have been written that accounted for that kind of wholesale destruction. Applying modern interpretations to a 230ish year old piece of paper doesn't transfer & jive well. Hence the need for loose constructionalism.

This case is made worse as it was the DEALER who accidently shot the man. Anyone with even the most basic amount of gun safety training would be able to tell you that you need to check the chamber, just to make sure no round was chambered.

Now, I thought that gun dealers had training in how to handle guns? I don't know, seems they would you know? I mean... You'd expect them to at least know about the product that they are selling.

Next up - Another prime example of why gun training, at least about how to safely handle and store them, needs to be required.

Quote:

RALEIGH, N.C. -- Officials say three people were wounded when gunfire erupted at a gun show at the North Carolina state fairgrounds.

It happened Saturday at the Dixie Gun and Knife Show, a quarterly event that usually draws thousands of people.

State agriculture department spokesman Brian Long says a 12-gauge shotgun discharged while its owner unzipped its case for a law enforcement officer to check it at a security entrance.

Two bystanders were hit by shotgun pellets and taken to a hospital. A retired deputy sheriff suffered a slight hand injury.

Long says the shotgun's owner, 36-year-old Gary Lynn Wilson of Wilmington, brought the weapon to the show to find a private buyer.

Yeah, and a local gun show that happened at my area went successfully without much in the way of any incidents. I poll over the newspaper at work daily and not once did I see a report of something bad going on at the gun show recently.

Bad things happen with everything. People abuse their rights or accidents happen regardless of training. Every time you get in a car, you risk an accident with someone or causing one. Every time you get on a bike, you risk hitting something. Every time you go skiing, you run the risk of injury or death. Every time you drink alcohol you run the risk of stopping your heart. Every time you smoke you increase the risk of cancer. Every time you eat you increase the risk of choking. Every time you get on an airplane, there's always the danger of a crash. Every time I take a night walk I run the risk of getting attacked by a wild animal or some nut jumps me for my wallet or decides to shoot me with a gun; guess what, I still go out walking at night anyway.

People need to stop being so afraid all the time and realize that life and everything in it is hazardous, dangerous, and can carry a risk of injury or death. If you're so concerned about safety, put yourself in a bubble and never go outside or handle anything or make any contact with any organic or inorganic substance ever again. Then you still end up dead anyway.

I'm all for gun control, but this does seem like just a couple of accidents. I think if we stick to the larger issues around guns there's already a strong enough case for gun control and we don't need examples like this which could easily disintegrate into finger pointing. ("You don't have a good argument. All your examples are just accidents." and so on.)

That said, I'd never go to a gun show myself. As a pro-gun control liberal I feel like I'd be as safe as a black person walking into a KKK rally.

A teenage boy fatally shot two adults and three children inside an Albuquerque home, authorities said Sunday.
The boy was arrested and booked on murder and other charges in connection with the shootings Saturday night, Bernalillo County sheriff's spokesman Aaron Williamson said.
The victims' identities haven't been released, and the boy's motive and connection to the five victims weren't immediately unknown. Williamson said investigators were trying to determine if the victims were related.
Investigators also were seeking to determine who owned several guns that were found at the home, one of which was a semi-automatic military-style rifle.
Authorities weren't releasing the name or age of the teenager accused in the attack. He was booked on two counts of murder and three counts of child abuse resulting in death.

And another one. Not sure if it's needs it's own thread though. These are becoming far too frequent.

__________________

3DS Friend Code: 1204-0601-9485PokémonXPost on my wall if you add me so I can add you!

This is why new stations shouldn't put news stories like Sandy Hook Elementary on the news almost everyday. It gives kids like these ideas and I'm lucky I live in Australia we have stricter gun laws but in the United States of America it is so easy to own a gun and then this happens. Why would you need a gun anyway? If someone was trying to kill you, you'd go to the police. If you were hunting, you could spare the poor animal's life and go buy the same animal as food from a store or market. Unless an apocalyptic situation befalls humanity, there really isn't a reason for guns to even EXIST. What ever happened to "Make Love, Not War?"

The PokéCommunity

Meta

Pokémon characters and images belong to The Pokémon Company International and Nintendo. This website is in no way affiliated with or endorsed by Nintendo, Creatures, GAMEFREAK, or The Pokémon Company International. We just love Pokémon.